Sunday, July 27, 2014

The land of the rising sun has become a fading star

Japan's economic prospects are dismal.

Since being surpassed as the second largest economy in the world (a position it held for over two decades) in 2010, it has fallen far behind China in nominal GDP, and will likely fall far further in the years to come.

There are two overriding factors determining this grim conclusion: debt and demographics.

Japan's national debt is over one quadrillion yen (ten trillion USD) - more than twice its GDP.

Debt servicing costs are projected to be over 23 trillion yen in 2014, while total tax revenues (after a major tax hike in the latest budget) will be 50 trillion yen. Thus nearly half of government revenues go straight to paying off interest on the debt. And this is with rock-bottom interest rates: as of July 25, 2014, Japan pays just 0.53% on ten year bonds (0.15% for five years and a stunning 0.06% for two).

On its face, Japan's financial situation is precarious.

Japan has been able to meet all debt payments and fund its deficits at such low rates of interest because its populace saves a significant portion of its income, and funnels a large percentage of those savings into Japanese bonds. Of large economies, Japan is an outlier in that the vast majority (over 90%) of its national debt is held domestically.

Which is why Japanese demographics matters.

Japan is aging, perhaps faster than any other nation. According to the Japanese Statistics Bureau, the number of Japanese 65 years and older [Excel] will steadily increase for the next twenty years, while the number of those aged between 15 and 64 declines, year after year. Using these numbers as an (imperfect) proxy for retirees and workforce, the stage is set for an inevitable crunch. (The following scenario may happen tomorrow or in ten years, but there is no way to avoid this impending crisis.)

With fewer workers, barring a miraculous increase in productivity, GDP will flatten or fall. Aggregate wages in Japan will also decline (likely at a greater rate, as younger workers are paid less than older ones) which will lead to lower overall savings. Since Japanese savings are the source of almost all purchases of Japanese bonds, the Japanese government will no longer be able to fund its ongoing deficits (41 trillion yen in 2012, with no significant decrease on the horizon), never mind its maturing debt, while paying virtually no interest. 

Drastic spending cuts and/or dramatic tax increases sufficient to eliminate the deficit (7.6% of GDP last year) in the near term would almost certainly plummet the country into a severe recession. The economic downturn would lower tax revenues and raise government social program expenditures - thus returning Japan to a deficit position. 

With an enormous and increasing debt, coupled with a flat or declining GDP, Japan will one day (soon) reach a crisis point. As I see it, Japan will have three options:
  1. Default in part or in full on outstanding debt.
  2. Raise the interest rates paid on government bonds.
  3. Have the central bank print money to buy bonds at a (much) lower interest rate than the market demands.
I view an explicit default as very unlikely. Doing so would destroy the wealth of the Japanese populace, who hold almost all national debt. It would be both contrary to the national interest and political suicide. 

Japan could raise interest rates, but this too is unlikely. Consider the effect of an increase of just half a percent on the interest rate Japan pays on its 10 year bonds. Even in the unlikely scenario that Japan runs balanced budgets for the next decade, this small rate rise doubles what the country must pay in interest every year, resulting in a situation where over 80% of taxes collected will go solely to paying interest on the national debt as bonds mature. This is clearly a recipe for national bankruptcy, leading to scenario 1 (default), which Japan will go to great lengths to avoid. 

This leaves printing yen - having the central bank buy bonds, in massive quantities, both to make up for the shrinking numbers of people buying bonds and to keep interest rates near zero. Rapidly increasing the money supply will lead to a rapidly depreciating currency. Since Japan has been a net importer since 2011, in the short run a lower yen will further deteriorate the country's financial position, as they must pay more yen for its imports (primarily energy products). Last year, Japan's trade deficit was 13.8 trillion yen (US$137B) - with a rapidly depreciating currency, the number of yen leaving the country will sharply increase. This is not good for Japan.

There is one silver lining in this scenario, which unfortunately comes with its own cloud. As the yen falls in value, Japan's mighty manufacturing capabilities become more cost competitive globally. This will improve Japan's balance of trade, and reduce one major source of capital flight. But if Japan takes full advantage of a weak yen to increase its exports, it will do so largely at the expense of its neighbours, including Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea, and - especially - China. Sino-Japanese relations are already deteriorating on multiple levels, including territorial claims, historical grievances, increasing militarization, and political rhetoric favouring nationalistic fervour over regional and international cooperation. Currency devaluation would exacerbate these tensions. In addition, the yen is one of the most widely traded currencies globally, and markets around the world would be rocked by a sudden drop in the value of the yen. Given the current context, deliberately depreciating Japan's currency could lead to a much broader regional economic or political conflict.

But let's set aside geopolitical and global currency market considerations and remain focused on Japanese economics. Devaluation of the yen will be considered a beggar thy neighbour tactic by other Pacific countries. Some will likely take steps to devalue their own currencies in response, seeking to maintain their share of global imports. Thus Japan would suffer all the negative effects of a weak currency (now shared with several regional nations) with few of the desired benefits. Any increase in Japanese exports is likely to be limited and short lived due to the reactions of other nations.

Thus Japan is trapped in a vise, largely of its own making. Both its demographics and debt profile were foreseeable for decades, but no effective remedial action was taken to counteract these trends. It saddens me, because I lived in Japan (nearly twenty years ago now) and have great admiration for its history, culture, and people. But with its shrinking workforce, aging populace, enormous debt, and continuing deficits, all roads lead economic disaster for Japan.

As Ernest Hemingway wrote in The Sun Also Rises:
"How did you go bankrupt?" Bill asked.
"Two ways," Mike said. "Gradually and then suddenly."
Twenty five years ago, Japan was a seemingly invincible economic colossus that struck fear in the hearts of businesses and industry worldwide. Now, I believe its days of going bankrupt gradually are nearing their end.

I hope I'm wrong.

Postscript:

My argument is based on the following assumptions:
  1. The average savings rate of the Japanese worker will remain roughly the same. (This is a conservative assumption, as historically it has been quite high compared to other wealthy nations; if the savings rate changes, it is far more likely to decrease than increase.)
  2. The investment mix for Japanese savings will not change substantially in the coming years. (Also a conservative view, as Japanese savers historically (and presently) significantly overweight their portfolios with domestic bonds, which fund the national deficit and maturing debt.)
  3. Japan will not accept large scale immigration to offset its declining workforce over the next two decades.
  4. Japanese real wages and productivity, already high by global standards, will not increase dramatically over the next 20 years. They will do so, at best, gradually - a few percentage points per annum.
  5. As people retire, they will become net spenders, not savers.
  6. International investors will not significantly increase their purchases of Japanese bonds at current interest rates.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

When the bottom line is the only line, it's a problem

Last year Apple was being widely criticized in the press for its practise of funneling billions of dollars to Ireland to minimize the taxes it paid. During the height of the controversy, an MBA classmate of mine (and current Apple employee) wrote, "Avoidance is not evasion. One is legal, the other isn't. If you want corporations to pay more tax, close the loopholes."

This led to an interesting discussion about the differences between legality and morality, and what role (if any) corporations play in the latter.

His first rationalization for Apple's behaviour was pointing out, quite accurately, that most global corporations minimize and defer their taxes through numerous tricks and schemes. If governments would just "close the loopholes", he proposed, corporations would pay more.
 

Doing so, however, is not so simple. Businesses routinely threaten, browbeat, cajole, and blackmail jurisdictions to create precisely the legal conditions that allow tax avoidance on a massive scale. Companies such as Apple are in no way passive entities, merely following the rules laid out for them. To say otherwise is inaccurate and perhaps dishonest. Furthermore, while "Everyone else is doing it!" is an accurate observation, it is not a moral justification.

But why, he then asked, should there be a moral component to any corporate calculation? After all, "US corporations exist with basically a singular purpose, to increase shareholder wealth/value."

This was covered in our MBA - Milton Friedman believed that anything a corporation did beyond maximizing profits was a deviation from its sole true purpose and supremely unethical. This included donations to charities, supporting basic scientific research, or contributing to general education at any level. Only if the expected return from such activities (for example, the favourable publicity resulting from sponsoring some worthy cause) exceeded other potential investments should a company consider doing so.

While presented in class as one perspective of many (and an extreme one at that), apparently it has been taken to heart by some. 

This leads to a larger issue - when one fully optimizes on a single variable, everything else falls by the wayside. Optimization is a powerful mathematical tool, but there can be disastrous effects if it turns out that more than one factor is significant. Maximizing farming biomass output per hectare in isolation will ignore (for example) potential massive increases in water and fertilizer inputs, leading to water table depletion and downstream pollution. Factories to this day tend to pollute air, land and water when doing so is cheaper than paying a fine if they are caught - despite the fact it is orders of magnitude cheaper to contain toxic waste at its source than to clean it up once it has diffused into the wider environs. (The weakness of environmental regulations and their lax enforcement are often significant factors for a company determining where it will build a large manufacturing facility.) This principle was brilliantly illustrated by Edward Norton's character in Fight Club:
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere travelling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.  
Perfect corporate logic. Horrific moral consequences.

Forbes magazine calls Friedman's call to maximize shareholder value to the exclusion of all other considerations "The world's dumbest idea", and notes its all too real results:
The corporate world is plagued by continuing scandals, such as the accounting scandals in 2001-2002 with Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International, Global Crossing, and Adelphia, the options backdating scandals of 2005-2006, and the subprime meltdown of 2007-2008. Banks and others have been gaming the system, both with practices that were shady but not strictly illegal and then with practices that were criminal. They include widespread insider trading, price fixing of LIBOR, abuses in foreclosure, money laundering for drug dealers and terrorists, assisting tax evasion and misleading clients with worthless securities.
Corporations do not exist in a vacuum. One cannot discard all considerations unrelated to maximizing profits merely because doing so may complicate a calculation. There is a social dimension because corporations (including Apple) derive enormous benefits from government expenditures:
  • Transportation infrastructure (airports, harbours, rail lines and roads) is generally built and maintained with tax dollars. Among other things, this allows corporations to ship products and move people around the globe cheaply. 
  • Functional governments enforce the rule of law, including an independent judiciary to maintain consistent application and oversee the enforcement of contracts if necessary.
  • Municipal, regional, and national police forces create and maintain safe(r) environments for factories, workplaces, and security of employees and tangible assets during and outside the working day.
  • Emergency response, such as fire and ambulance, are almost universally government funded and run services.
  • Most American Apple employees were educated in the US, in government funded primary, elementary, secondary, and post-secondary institutions.
One can see corporate influence on US tax policy by corporate taxes collected over time as a percentage of GDP. In the United States, corporations and individuals paid roughly the same amount in 1939 (actually, corporations paid slightly more - the last time this was the case). Ten years later, individuals paid 39% more. In 1959, individuals paid more than twice the taxes (2.14x) of corporations. This trend continues over the years - by 1979, individuals contributed more than three times what corporations did to government revenues; in 1999, it was nearly five times as much. 

In 2009, over 86% of the tax burden came from individuals. This trend cannot continue much further.

Corporations should include ethical considerations into their calculus - if for no other reason than enlightened self-interest. If a sufficient number of large companies and wealthy individuals become as successful as Apple in manipulating then exploiting the tax codes of various countries, our entire economic system will collapse into itself.

People in the developed world depend on corporations for so many crucial aspects of life - food, communication, drugs, equipments, products, and much else - that elements of corporate behaviour that jeopardize the stability, health, or longevity of societies in which they participate should be viewed as immoral.  The problem is not just that corporations behave unethically (though many do); it is that we (society) have created a system where harmful, detrimental corporate behaviour is implicitly (and in some cases explicitly) rewarded. The system must change if we are to avoid a catastrophic implosion; corporations are a single (major) player in a large, complex game. 

Perhaps we need to broaden the corporate mandate to include more than making money for shareholders; perhaps enforceable and genuinely global agreements on taxation and regulation would minimize the "loopholes" so expertly exploited by multinationals. 

At a minimum, we need to start having the conversation.

Friday, January 03, 2014

Canadian Secular Alliance Question & Answer Session at Eschaton 2012

After my speech at Eschaton 2012, there was a Q&A session with three Canadian Secular Alliance panelists: Justin Trottier, Veronica Abbass, and myself.

Questions raised included spending during Canadian political campaigns, the limits of free speech, and whether organizations such as CSA and CFI Canada can and should embrace the religious who agree with the principles of secular governance.

If asked today, I would probably change my answer (ten minutes in) to the question about the federal Conservatives having an explicit anti-science agenda.

Overall, I am happy with the thoughtful and spirited exchange of ideas. Enjoy.




Sunday, December 15, 2013

What war on Christmas?

There is no war on Christmas, except in the paranoid minds of those that insist Christians are a persecuted majority in the US (perhaps it is contagious - Canada's federal government in recent years seems to be making wishing people a Merry Christmas a priority).

In the bad old days, pretty much every Canadian was Christian (those that were already here were sent to residential schools because they weren't considered "real" Canadians; those that believed differently either weren't allowed in, were openly discriminated against, and/or were deemed disposable (by, for example, forced labour building rail lines)). Canada now boasts significant numbers of Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, Wiccans, and a growing percentage of individuals who adhere to no religion.

"Happy Holidays" as a generic greeting is a recognition that, until you learn otherwise, it isn't necessarily accurate to wish your conversation partner "Merry Christmas." Of course, if offered a seasonal greeting that isn't part of your cultural heritage, just respond in kind. It's simply being polite - a quintessential (in stereotype, if not in reality) Canadian value. In no way is it accurate or reasonable to portray "Season's Greetings" as an attack on Christianity.

Christmas has been a secular consumerist event for decades. Many people celebrate and love Christmas for entirely non-religious reasons. If a store doesn't erect a Christmas tree or manger display, it's a business decision - not an ideological assault or anti-Christian sentiment.

Using the term "war" is a clear example of overblown rhetoric. We're moving from assuming that everyone celebrates Christmas to recognizing the reality that many do, and some don't. No one is shunned. No one is hurt. No one is maimed. No one is killed. No one is having their rights infringed upon in any way. Where is the war? Because religious displays are left to private homes and houses of worship instead of city hall? Because Christmas iconography (including the "secular" kind, such as conifers and sleighs) are merely prominent instead of universal?

To those incensed at the fading prominence of explicit Christmas greetings - get a sense of perspective. Christmas is offensive to no one, but the phrase "War on Christmas" is to many. Direct your passion, indignation, resources, money, and energy to the plenitude of issues facing our society that need addressing. Don't waste your (and so many other people's) time with this invented non-event.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Do not give your money to these people

They are everywhere this time of year - at the entrances of supermarkets, in the hallways of malls, by the exits of beer and liquor stores.

They use a number of gimmicks to attract your attention, are usually polite, and all want the same thing - your money. 

I am talking about the Salvation Army, and I want to encourage you not to let the bell-ringers convince you to make a contribution to their organization.

Last year I learned that the Salvation Army is a despicably homophobic organization. The Canadian chapter "believes marriage is the covenanting together of one man and one woman for life in a union to the exclusion of all others." It has similarly unenlightened views about gays and lesbians (but does not condone violence). Different chapters (countries) have different policies, some of which state that being gay is a sin before God and must be corrected.

Despite its generally successful efforts to portray themselves as an inclusive organization serving anyone in need, in practice it is ecumenical - serving folks of all religious backgrounds, as long as they are Christian (or willing to consider becoming so). I have heard that some branches offer food, coffee, and extra breaks to employees who attend daily prayer groups.


 "The Salvation Army exists to share the love of Jesus Christ." The Canadian chapter's mission statement reveals that the primary purpose of your money and gifts is to proselytize the Good Word. I was shocked to discover this about the Salvation Army, given its ubiquity; perhaps others will be surprised as well.  

I will not contribute anything to the Salvation Army, regardless of their other good works. They operate under false pretences, using the goodwill of others as a club to evangelize, and consider the words written on a piece of parchment millennia ago by desert nomads to be more important than the well-being of their fellow contemporary human beings. I encourage everyone instead make a donation to organizations that are genuinely charitable. Given the multiple disaster areas around the world, from the wreckage left by extreme weather events to the horrific human consequences of war, I recommend Médecins Sans Frontière (Doctors Without Borders).

Friday, December 06, 2013

What was Brian Pallister thinking?

Brian Pallister, leader of the Manitoba Progressive Conservative party and head of the provincial official opposition, created quite the stir in some circles when the following video was widely circulated online on Monday, December 2 2013:



Many self-identified "infidel atheists" were incensed by his remarks. I fail to see what the hubbub is about. 

Here is a basic breakdown of what Mr. Pallister focuses on during the 23-second video:
  • 5 seconds wishing folks a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah
  • 15 seconds talking about how he doesn't understand unbelievers, and how that's fine with him
  • 3 seconds wishing everyone all the best
Atheists got top billing in terms of air time.

Of course, I have no access to the inner workings of Mr. Pallister's mind, but the following seems to me to be a reasonable guess.

Mr. Pallister was speaking off the cuff on a topic he is rather uncomfortable with - hence the stumbling, almost stuttering delivery. He is probably aware of atheists and religiously unaffiliated Canadians in a way he wouldn't have been even ten years ago.

So while saying "Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah," he possibly thought, without preparing an answer, "What about the nonbelievers? I can't appear to be excluding them, and I don't want controversy." And so he started his sentence, and another part of his brain interrupted with, "Don't be too accommodating; you don't want to alienate your religious constituents."

Thus the strange mix of inclusiveness, wishing everyone all the best, with terminology ("atheist infidels") most often used in a pejorative manner.

Mr. Pallister inadvertently drew attention to the fact that a large and growing number of Canadians do not view Christmas as a religious holiday in any way. Canadians generally view the end of the calendar year as a time to embrace family, feasts, gifts, trees, lights, retail discounts, and three statutory holidays within one week. The religious nature of December 25th matters to an ever-shrinking percentage of the population. "Keep the Christ in Christmas" was quaint twenty years ago. It is not as obsolete as abacuses or monocles, but still a reminder of times past, like cathode ray tube television sets or people wearing wristwatches. Mr. Pallister clearly recognizes this on some level, even if it doesn't apply to him personally.

In my view, this is a tempest in a teapot. He spent most of his time saying how he wanted everyone to enjoy this time of year, and was clearly grasping at straws to find a way to do so. Yes, he employed a poor choice of words. But rather than criticise him for that, freethinkers should thank him for explicitly mentioning the community and his desire for all to appreciate the season. Instead, request that Mr. Pallister accept the invitation to speak with a representative of Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics of Manitoba so he can extend warm wishes in the future to a significant part of his electorate in a more diplomatic, appropriate manner. If he accepts, it would demonstrate genuine good faith, and his message will be received with the warmth and compassion with which it was (presumably) intended.

Citing this as an example of anti-atheist bias in elected officials is inappropriate and will dilute warranted criticism when other public figures make far more egregious, explicit attacks on atheists' legal rights and physical well-being. Save outrage for truly outrageous acts.

Secularism is not nearly enough: Video

One year ago, I attended the Centre for Inquiry Ottawa's Eschaton 2012 conference. I gave a speech entitled Secularism Is Not Nearly Enough as part of a Canadian Secular Alliance panel, which was recorded. The video has just been made publicly available. The video freezes during the first minute, but is of reasonable quality thereafter. Enjoy.